Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That reminds me, I really should grab one of those copies of Dreadfleet my FLGS still has. IIRC, they even have it for about 25% off.

...Not saying that you should buy it though mate ! Credit where it is due and all that..

What is the cost in Aus of that game, I'm guessing something mental. And will 25% off take it anywhere near the price of 2 fleets for Dystopian Wars or Uncharted Seas, both of which offer a far superior nautical wargaming experience?

 Kingsley wrote:
"Tau selling out is bad for GW, not good!" is probably the silliest piece of Internet wisdom I've seen in a while.

lol.....tell that to Apple......demand always outstrips supply, this in turn creates a product which is scarce and therefore people tend not to moan as much about the price lol

Dont think that people at GW are complete idiots......

The Tau kits will come back into supply. People who want them will buy them next week if they could not get them last week.

The damage is reputational. It would be highly unethical to cut off the independent shops you supply while keeping goods in stock in your own retail chain.

I realise that in the end, GW did not do that. Apparently the FLGSs got most or all of what they wanted. However whether the situation arose from a bad ethical decision that was revised, or a lack of forward planning in the supply chain, it shakes confidence either way.

 Pacific wrote:
...Not saying that you should buy it though mate ! Credit where it is due and all that..

What is the cost in Aus of that game, I'm guessing something mental. And will 25% off take it anywhere near the price of 2 fleets for Dystopian Wars or Uncharted Seas, both of which offer a far superior nautical wargaming experience?

IIRC, at launch, it was $190au. My FLGS has it for about $150au, last I checked.

I've got no interest getting into another full fledged wargame. Dreadfleet was something I really liked the look of - it's got a campaign and a story and uses Warhammers ridiculous magic and monsters to great effect, and from what I've heard, is a really enjoyable beer and pretzels game. Just want I want. And is all contained in one box.

Seriously, what's this Tau supply jargon?

My local store has a window display of new Tau and shedloads inside.

My two nearest GW's have stuff in stock.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The damage is reputational. It would be highly unethical to cut off the independent shops you supply while keeping goods in stock in your own retail chain.

I realise that in the end, GW did not do that. Apparently the FLGSs got most or all of what they wanted. However whether the situation arose from a bad ethical decision that was revised, or a lack of forward planning in the supply chain, it shakes confidence either way.

I do wonder at GW's logic in all of this - the FLGS are in effect salesmen for their game outside of the official GW stores. With all of this, the direct only sales, and numerous other difficulties that shop owners have posted on here, how likely is it to make those shop owners try to hawk their systems? They are practically being driven to try and push sales of other systems instead.

 Pacific wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
The damage is reputational. It would be highly unethical to cut off the independent shops you supply while keeping goods in stock in your own retail chain.

I realise that in the end, GW did not do that. Apparently the FLGSs got most or all of what they wanted. However whether the situation arose from a bad ethical decision that was revised, or a lack of forward planning in the supply chain, it shakes confidence either way.

I do wonder at GW's logic in all of this - the FLGS are in effect salesmen for their game outside of the official GW stores. With all of this, the direct only sales, and numerous other difficulties that shop owners have posted on here, how likely is it to make those shop owners try to hawk their systems? They are practically being driven to try and push sales of other systems instead.

I wouldn't shop at any store that pushed a system at all.

It's bad that this happened, and removes confidence in GW being able to provide pre orders (which has happened quite a bit recently). But if I walked into a store and started browsing their 40k section, and the staff told me to buy some Warmachine instead because *insert reason*, I'd probably just leave. Customers make up their own minds generally. The best thing store owners should do is simply give a cautionary warning if someone places a pre order.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The internet has reached terminal bitching velocity.

Nothing is actually happening.

Right. GW bans online retailers, bans bits, raises prices past where they could concievably be raised, hobbit is a bust, production facility in Memphis closes, Tau supply debacle, downsizes stores to one man operations with limited hours, discourages gaming in-store, finecrap all within the last 1.5 years and just today the 3 largest investors are pulling out of GW. And it's "just" the internet.

Gets me all giddy inside

Agreed. Maybe the IP will go to an actual games company (GW now calls itself a model company) and someone will make a solid set of rules to go with all the nice miniatures.

 -Loki- wrote:


I wouldn't shop at any store that pushed a system at all.

It's bad that this happened, and removes confidence in GW being able to provide pre orders (which has happened quite a bit recently). But if I walked into a store and started browsing their 40k section, and the staff told me to buy some Warmachine instead because *insert reason*, I'd probably just leave. Customers make up their own minds generally. The best thing store owners should do is simply give a cautionary warning if someone places a pre order.

Any good FLGS Owner is far more subtle than that.

For example, every store has certain shelves or areas that will sell the product on it faster than others for a variety of psychological reasons (eye level, where it happens to be placed in a circuit of the store, etc). As a result, a store owner choosing to push a product can be as simple as picking where to place it. Likewise, a product can be vanished to obscurity on the lower sales, more obscure shelving.

There are also other factors, such as how much of a product line the store chooses to carry, how much support (tournaments, etc) is maintained, what games are recommended to new players/customers, word of mouth to more loyal customers, and so on.

Your local FLGS owner has far more impact over what he chooses to sell and you choose to buy than you might realise. And if GW hacks enough of them off, you may find that each time Privateer Press, or another company will pick up that slack and get the more prominent placing. Infinity night will get slotted in instead of Lord of the Rings night. When giving demonstration painting lessons, a Malifaux miniature is picked out to show the new customer instead of a Space Marine.


Whilst it continues to earn money, a FLGS owner will rarely just instantly cease to carry and support a game. However should they choose to do so, they have a multitude of ways of slowly strangling the introduction of new blood to it (and thus guaranteeing its eventual decline and demise locally).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Nafarious wrote:
I have also heard that the CEO's plan to get out of the company, and are getting really to sell it off.

Kirby intended to retire after 5 years when he led the buyout from Bryan Ansell, 20 years ago.

He remained because he found he could keep awarding himself more money (awarded himself both salaries as CEO and Chair, then when that was pointed out as dubious, hired Wells but took no pay cut... and now he's 'covering' for Wells stepping down after Kirby's return from the USA beheadings? Oh yeah, another pay increase) and increasing the value of his own shares. He is the spider in the web and most of what's wrong with the company can be traced back to him, that failed TSR writer, and the corporate suits with nothing but disdain of the hobby that he brought in to the highest positions.

Who was the writer from TSR that they brought on board?

xraytango wrote:


Who was the writer from TSR that they brought on board?

Kirby, he used to write modules for TSR. They were not well received by the senior staff. (strangely one of his modules received a very good review from White Dwarf, back in the days when they did that sort of thing, before all those contributors were fired and the magazine became purely inhouse...).

He also told the design team, back in the 90s, that the minis would sell if they were sold in soap boxes instead of boxes with good artwork and implemented such (you remember the solid, brittle plastic boxes they temporarily replaced the original artwork 'regiments of renown' into back then? It was met with a sharp decline in sales and he was forced to make a U turn. Something that lead to his somewhat unfavorable view of the artistic dept and seek to get rid of much of the team, reducing down to just a few and getting rid of others or exiling them to the various offshoot products that cropped up around the mid to late 90s.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a major toy manufacturer (like Hasbro), a major video game company (Blizzard-Activision), or a large media company (Disney) is going to get their hands on GW within the next year.

Seems what everything is building up towards as GW tries to bulk up its perceived value by protecting IPs, updating products, and trying to show that their product is going to sell well/add to an already existing stable of merchandise.

 -Loki- wrote:
I wouldn't shop at any store that pushed a system at all.

It's bad that this happened, and removes confidence in GW being able to provide pre orders (which has happened quite a bit recently). But if I walked into a store and started browsing their 40k section, and the staff told me to buy some Warmachine instead because *insert reason*, I'd probably just leave. Customers make up their own minds generally. The best thing store owners should do is simply give a cautionary warning if someone places a pre order.

I disagree that "customers make up their own minds generally". If the store chooses to fill the store with advertising from other companies rather than GW, place GW paints alongside cheaper paints from other companies, if they have tables, use the tables for games other than GW games, inform gamers of some of the shadier dealings they've had with GW, it can definitely have an impact on gamers.

For someone who knows what they want before they ever walk in to the shop, it's not going to matter either way. For people who are more interested in the hobby in general or don't know the hobby as well, the FLGS owner can definitely push sales one way or another without "pushing" directly on to the individual customers. If the FLGS is related to or linked with a club, they can have an even greater influence on things.

Video game publishers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their games and advertising prominently displayed in stores. While hobby stores are most certainly different, they can definitely have an effect. Hell, in my younger days, my FLGS owner got me in to Epic 40k Tyranids (I already had a 40k Epic Ork army) because someone else had traded some Tyranids and he gave them to me for almost nothing... which then resulted in me coming back and buying more on a later occasion

I'm not personally convinced that any big shake-ups are in the works.

But who knows?

As long as I can get my hands on the new eldar before they switch over I'm happy.

 Pacific wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Hmm... would new owners try to grow the company though or just carry on milking the cow?

The question is whether the cow will survive the rate of milking.

As I've said many times before, I think GW could do a lot better if they used their retail chain to sell more stuff than just WH/40K, like in the good old days when they enjoyed rapid year on year growth.

This is the greatest problem I have with their current business strategy.. the term 'Games Workshop' hasn't really been valid for at least a decade or so now, and being content to release a 0.1 upgrade of the rules every few years, shuffle a few things round in a codex, rinse and repeat isn't really enough for those of us who have been playing long term! At least, from my own perspective, after dismounting at least 20,000 marines from a rhino it would be nice if GW could produce a change of scenery for when you want to try something different. But they don't, and so other games and manufacturers continue to grow.

Dreadfleet was a step back in the right direction, and it was a glimmer of what the company was once capable of, even if the general conception of the game was that it was poorly executed. On those grounds, yes perhaps it didn't instantly sell out, but it would be good if it had sold enough to make the bean counters consider giving another new game a try.

Dreadfleet really was a terrible idea. I am very interested in fantasy naval battles in the warhammer world (own over 300 Man O War ships) but I passed on dreadfleet because of the price and rules. I mean if you cant sell something like dreadfleet to me you have gone horribly wrong with a product.

They knew a classic game with pent up demand and miniatures compatible with 40k would sell out, but they did Dreadfleet? That was just an all around fail.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
As long as I can get my hands on the new eldar before they switch over I'm happy.

You mean if they aren't already sold out before release, that is. Been over a week and I still can't get any of the new Tau, and if they don't show up this Friday I'll have to wait even longer.

But of course, "this is good news!"

 Sidstyler wrote:
But of course, "this is good news!"

No, it's terible news and GW should burn in hell for having supply issues.

Of course, when Privateer Press have supply issues, it's fantastic because the game is so popular they can't keep up with demand.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
But of course, "this is good news!"

No, it's terible news and GW should burn in hell for having supply issues.

Of course, when Privateer Press have supply issues, it's fantastic because the game is so popular they can't keep up with demand.

Also fantasyflight can't keep x-wing in stock to save there souls.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
But of course, "this is good news!"

No, it's terible news and GW should burn in hell for having supply issues.

Of course, when Privateer Press have supply issues, it's fantastic because the game is so popular they can't keep up with demand.

Exalted.

Never before has so little meant so much and so many different things to so many different people.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
But of course, "this is good news!"

No, it's terible news and GW should burn in hell for having supply issues.

Of course, when Privateer Press have supply issues, it's fantastic because the game is so popular they can't keep up with demand.

Also fantasyflight can't keep x-wing in stock to save there souls.

They should burn too. They obviously don't care about the gamers who want to play it and are deliberately either not releasing stock to stockists and distributors or not producing enough to create an artificial demand.

I wasn't aware that PP and FFG both had the same history of being actively hostile to their own customers/retailers/distributors that GW does.

Also, I can buy X-Wing at my local store, so clearly the FFG stock issues are just the internet over-exaggerating things or making storms in tea cups like it typically does.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I wasn't aware that PP and FFG both had the same history of being actively hostile to their own customers/retailers/distributors that GW does.

I wasn't aware it had been proven that the low stock for Tau had any malice behind it. I'd like to see actual evidence about it - would be nice to finally stop all the anecdotal evidence.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Also, I can buy X-Wing at my local store, so clearly the FFG stock issues are just the internet over-exaggerating things or making storms in tea cups like it typically does.

Day of release, I walked into my FLGS, a non GW store, and they had multiples of each on the shelves of everything new the Tau got, so clearly the GW Tau stock issues are just the internet exaggerating things or making storms in a tea cups like it typically does.

PS. Seriously, they had at least 3 of each new product including the codex, and that was after lunchtime when the store had been open and received the initial rush of people coming in to buy them, with people sitting around building the new kits and reading the codex in the store while I was playing a game.

JWhex wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Dreadfleet was a step back in the right direction, and it was a glimmer of what the company was once capable of, even if the general conception of the game was that it was poorly executed. On those grounds, yes perhaps it didn't instantly sell out, but it would be good if it had sold enough to make the bean counters consider giving another new game a try.

Dreadfleet really was a terrible idea. I am very interested in fantasy naval battles in the warhammer world (own over 300 Man O War ships) but I passed on dreadfleet because of the price and rules. I mean if you cant sell something like dreadfleet to me you have gone horribly wrong with a product.

They knew a classic game with pent up demand and miniatures compatible with 40k would sell out, but they did Dreadfleet? That was just an all around fail.

I meant that in the sense it was a step in the right direction - GW used to be a hotbed of imagination and creativity, and it was their coupling of that (with the ability to make good models for whatever game they conjured up) that I think was largely responsible for them being in the position they are in today.

As such Dreadfleet was probably the only thing they have done in more than a decade that wasn't just a re-hash of a previous version, with a 0.1 change to the rules, a section of re-written background, and perhaps a new monster/character/vehicle plastic kit thrown in. It's all grown very stale.

-Loki- wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
The damage is reputational. It would be highly unethical to cut off the independent shops you supply while keeping goods in stock in your own retail chain.

I realise that in the end, GW did not do that. Apparently the FLGSs got most or all of what they wanted. However whether the situation arose from a bad ethical decision that was revised, or a lack of forward planning in the supply chain, it shakes confidence either way.

I do wonder at GW's logic in all of this - the FLGS are in effect salesmen for their game outside of the official GW stores. With all of this, the direct only sales, and numerous other difficulties that shop owners have posted on here, how likely is it to make those shop owners try to hawk their systems? They are practically being driven to try and push sales of other systems instead.

I wouldn't shop at any store that pushed a system at all.

It's bad that this happened, and removes confidence in GW being able to provide pre orders (which has happened quite a bit recently). But if I walked into a store and started browsing their 40k section, and the staff told me to buy some Warmachine instead because *insert reason*, I'd probably just leave. Customers make up their own minds generally. The best thing store owners should do is simply give a cautionary warning if someone places a pre order.

Obviously I don't mean people who have come in to buy a thing specifically. But, in the sense that if you get a customer (possibly parents for instance) who are fishing around for ideas, and want something new, the FLGS staff is going to be far more likely to push them in the direction of something other than a GW game.

Yes, it's true that Space Hulk was basically an update, and Dreadfleet was a brand new design. Which makes it a great pity that it was a failure. I wonder why Dreadfleet was such a failure?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it's true that Space Hulk was basically an update, and Dreadfleet was a brand new design. Which makes it a great pity that it was a failure. I wonder why Dreadfleet was such a failure?

Because it was a horrible game with horrible rules?

From what I heard it was just an awful game. In fact I think "So random as to be a farce" might actually be a direct quote from one of the reviews I saw.

It basically sounds like it was a game on rails, where all the wacky cards and random events essentially played the game for you. Player input was minimal, there was little to no thinking or tactical play involved, and you were mainly only needed to physically push the models around on the table and just watch the action happen...sounds kinda like 40k 6th edition, come to think of it . Add to that the ships were mostly goofy-looking and didn't have much value as collector's pieces or as proxies for other ship games, and the obligatory high price point, and it doesn't exactly sound like a recipe for success.

They tried something new, but they didn't try very hard, or stray far enough from their gakky formula.

 Sidstyler wrote:
From what I heard it was just an awful game. In fact I think "So random as to be a farce" might actually be a direct quote from one of the reviews I saw.

It basically sounds like it was a game on rails, where all the wacky cards and random events essentially played the game for you. Player input was minimal, there was little to no thinking or tactical play involved, and you were mainly only needed to physically push the models around on the table and just watch the action happen...sounds kinda like 40k 6th edition, come to think of it . Add to that the ships were mostly goofy-looking and didn't have much value as collector's pieces or as proxies for other ship games, and the obligatory high price point, and it doesn't exactly sound like a recipe for success.

They tried something new, but they didn't try very hard, or stray far enough from their gakky formula.

That sounds like Talisman to me, no player input at all.

Talisman was hugely popular.

I had understood that Dreadfleet's rules were pretty crappy, but the real question is, what GW would think a game with crappy rules would sell.

OTOH look at Talisman, which is a very random game.